Monday, December 30, 2013

Climate change expedition trapped in Antartica. In the ice. In summer.

A funny thing happened on the way to global warming: namely, everybody froze.

An expedition of twenty-some climate scientists and their groupies were going to Antarctica to conduct some wildlife and weather observations when their boat got stuck in the above normal amounts of summer sea ice. As it turns out, the ice extent in Antarctica has reached record levels this year.

18 comments:

In other news, The Family Foundation is demanding that the governor take steps to prohibit the import of corn from North Dakota. This would include products made from ND-grown corn. According the TFF, this corn is obviously a liberal plot intended to convince people of the truth of global warming, and its importation is a slap in the face of God-fearing conservatives who choose to deny reality.

It's well-established that he just cannot wrap his head around big concepts like global trends and keeps confusing them with local weather extremes. Also, posting links to actual science just doesn't work - Anonymous. That's just evil scientism and can't be trusted.

What's more, Martin is way too busy selectively picking out news stories about weather (it's cold somewhere! Global Warming is a hoax!) and actively disregarding examples to the contrary (record Typhoons in Asia? Nothing to do with climate change!) for him to have any time to actually think about these things in detail.

I think a lot of folks are confused about what global warming is (I know I was for a while, and I'm still none too knowledgeable about it).

Basically (correct me if I get stuff wrong) life on Earth exists in a "sweet spot" (not too cold, not too hot), and if we increase the average temperature of the Earth, by just a few degrees Celsius --which we are currently doing by releasing heat-trapping gasses such CO2 into the atmosphere-- the weather is gonna start getting weirder and weirder (less and less predictable). For example (hypothetical, I don't know the actual data) a rainstorm of an intensity that comes only once in 100 years will now come every 10, while on the other hand droughts get progressively worse, etc.

You are absolutely right. One of the biggest problems is the term 'global warming' itself. It suggests that the climate will be getting warmer everywhere and all the time, which is of course not what climatologists predict. The term 'climate change' is much more appropriate in that sense.

'Have I got this straight?'

Essentially, yes.

I am not a climate scientist, so I would be happy to be corrected on some of the points below, but this is the general idea:

The effects of climate change will vary depending on your geographical location. Places like the UK or Scandinavia, for example, can expect milder winters (with probably more rainfall) and warmer summers. While this will create quite dramatic changes in the ecology of those areas, it will probably not lead to massive storms or horrible droughts on a scale now seen in some parts of the US or Asia. (Unless the gulf stream is affected sometime in the future - but that is still some way off, hopefully).

The problem is more severe in areas that are already prone to extreme weather, because there the extremes will worsen. This especially troublesome for regions where important crops are grown.

The biggest problem we face is the incapacity of humans to think in the long-term. We simply are ill-equipped to consider ramifications of our actions even five or ten years into the future, so thinking 50 or 100 years ahead as is required when we consider climate is very difficult indeed. Especially when all it takes is one bad winter for people to go: 'Look at how cold it is - this global warming stuff is all nonsense!'

I think the effects of warming on the climate of Northern Europe may be a bit more paradoxical. This is because a large-scale melting of the Greenland ice sheet may disrupt the Gulf Stream. This would in turn bring the climate of N. Europe more in line with its latitude (think Montreal or Quebec).

In other words, global warming will not necessarily mean a uniform effect on local climates.

Singring, given that the Earth is billions of years old, how can you say that the recent Asian typhoons were record setting, much less that they were attributable to "climate change"? May a polar bear love you long time Herr Cassandra.

'Singring, given that the Earth is billions of years old, how can you say that the recent Asian typhoons were record setting, much less that they were attributable to "climate change"?'

Unfortunately, dinosaurs didn't record the number and intensity of typhoons, Anonymous. So our reference point is recorded history.

Also, maybe you would like to go back a few billion years to an atmosphere in which there wasn't even enough oxygen to sustain aerobic life, let alone an amenable climate. I prefer a climate in which we can grow enough crops to feed the world, prevent massive flooding of coastal areas etc.

But that's just me...

Finally, I never claimed they were attributable to climate change. My point was that Martin was selectively picking news stories that he thinks confirm his ideology but then disregards stories that might run counter to his ideology.

Forget billions of years and dinosaurs, Singring, we know that there have been extreme climate changes in just the past hundreds of years and that man had nothing to do with it. Native Americans went from winters so harsh that many did not survive to winters so mild that there was amazement and confusion...in less than a generation. So, what we're back to is your side wanting tax and regulatory power to properly set the thermostat, while those like me have gone from being lableled sceptics to deniers, kind of like your side switching overnight from global warming to climate change.

'Singring, we know that there have been extreme climate changes in just the past hundreds of years and that man had nothing to do with it.'

'Extreme changes' in the past few 'hundreds' of years? Is that so? Could you point me to any scientific research that supports this claim?

'Native Americans went from winters so harsh that many did not survive to winters so mild that there was amazement and confusion..'

First: what is your source for this claim?

Second: Didn't we already go over the fact that there is a difference between local weather and global climate trends? I can remember incredibly harsh and incredibly warm winters in Europe within my lifetime - that has nothing to do with global climate change, because that is about, well, global climate trends. The difference should be fairly obvious.

'So, what we're back to is your side wanting tax and regulatory power to properly set the thermostat, while those like me have gone from being lableled sceptics to deniers, kind of like your side switching overnight from global warming to climate change. '

I don't care what you political ideology is or what kind of paranoid delusions you have regarding governmental power - what we are discussing here are objective scientific data.

I understand that you are incredibly scared of the big bad government coming and taking all of your hard-earned money. You have been very well trained by the rich to fight their cause for them and see evil socialists lurking in every corner, especially in those damn elitist science departments at universities...

The harsh reality is that you can certainly have your own opinion but you can't have your own facts.

So where is the evidence that there have been these 'extreme' changes in climate in the last few 'hundred' years?

Well, gee, Singring, when you grow up in the dead center of the U.S. and your teachers informed you that the rocks you picked up were glacial till and that the fossils you found were sea fossils, that's an early education on climate change, wouldn't you think? There's also the Little Ice Age which wasn't all that long ago. As for your derision about sceptic/deniers being tools of rich corporations (where's my check, Exxon?) how about the fact that so many like you are funded to slant your science towards more funding to social engineer a saving of the world including the corruption of "scientific data" ( East Anglia) Good luck with your lobbying in Europe, Americans are not such patsies.

'Well, gee, Singring, when you grow up in the dead center of the U.S. and your teachers informed you that the rocks you picked up were glacial till and that the fossils you found were sea fossils, that's an early education on climate change, wouldn't you think?'

A few points:

1.) This is purely anecdotal. I asked for published research.

2.) You claimed there 'have been extreme climate changes in just the past hundreds of years'. How do glacial till and fossils have anything to do with that claim?

3.) What's your point here - the central US used to be covered in glaciers, therefore humans are not responsible for current climate change? Where's the logical link?

'There's also the Little Ice Age which wasn't all that long ago.'

What 'Little Ice Age'? How long ago? This is incredibly vague, can you please supply references to the original research?

'As for your derision about sceptic/deniers being tools of rich corporations (where's my check, Exxon?) how about the fact that so many like you are funded to slant your science towards more funding to social engineer a saving of the world including the corruption of "scientific data" ( East Anglia) Good luck with your lobbying in Europe, Americans are not such patsies.'

Have you ever been to a science department? Have you ever talked to climate scientists? Do you know how their funding compares to the income of major corporations?Do you realize how much your average climate science PhD student or Postdoc is paid?

Do you realize that the amount of money spent on funding climate research is trivial compared to the profits of large multinationals like those operated by the Koch brothers?

For example, the *entire* EU science budget (not just climate science, but all science) from 2014 to 2020, is about 80 billion Euros.

If scientists wanted to make easy money (and by the way, research money goes into research - not into researcher's pockets), the *first* thing they'd do is go to oil companies and take their money to do 'climate research'.

It is positively hilarious to hear you say that any scientist is doing this for the money.

The entire history of Earth's very existence is one of extreme climate/atmospheric changes with mankind only existing for a fraction of that time. So, Singring, where would you rank man's current contribution to climate changes in relation to solar cycles, ocean currents, jet streams, magnetism, volcanism, tectonics, etc? The issue isn't really your "consensus science" but what cost your side wants to impose based upon your remedies. BTW Oil companies make a lot of money because they trade in the substance which makes the world economy go round. China is opening a coal fired plant every week and cutting oil deals all over the world so why don't people like you demand that China go first on hewing to the leftist environmntal movement. It's everyboday's air, right? PS Don't stand in front of those tanks.

'The entire history of Earth's very existence is one of extreme climate/atmospheric changes with mankind only existing for a fraction of that time. So, Singring, where would you rank man's current contribution to climate changes in relation to solar cycles, ocean currents, jet streams, magnetism, volcanism, tectonics, etc?'

Several points:

1.) The current rate of climate change is much faster than it has been historically (see here: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html). So even though there has been dramatic climate change in the past, the current situation is different - much worse, in fact, at least from our perspective.

2.) What you don;t seem to graps is that what is happening to the climate is not up to my or your opinions, it is up to the empirical data - of which you have presented none so far to support your ever more vague and general excuses for ignorance.

The empirical data is unambiguous: The current climate is warming at an unprecendented rate for the last 65 million years (with all other factors considered) and virtually every climate scientist agrees that the data points towards humans as the cause.

'The issue isn't really your "consensus science" but what cost your side wants to impose based upon your remedies.'

So now you've realized that the 'scientists are doing it for the money' argument doesn't fly because it flies in the fact of the facts, you just accuse us ad hominem.

What on earth would be our motive for imposing these costs? Let me be clear: I *wish* there was no climate change. I *wish* I could burn fossil fuels to my heart's content because it makes life really comfortable. I like a warm home. I like having a big TV.

So I really *wish* I could just deny the facts and go on living as we are. But I am a scientist so I have to accept the facts - we better do something dramatic fast or the outcome for future generations and even us will be dramatic itself.

'BTW Oil companies make a lot of money because they trade in the substance which makes the world economy go round.'

1.) I agree.

2.) How does that imply we should not be doing everything in our power to develop other ways of making the world go round that won't wreck our climate? Or should we just sit around on our lazy behinds and wait for bad things to happen because we can't be bothered doing otherwise? Is that how the US rose to power?

'China is opening a coal fired plant every week and cutting oil deals all over the world so why don't people like you demand that China go first on hewing to the leftist environmental movement. It's everyboday's air, right?'

1.) Get your facts straight: Yes, China leads the world in total CO2 emissions, but in per capita emissions, the US ranks almost twice as high. So if anything, everyone else should be asking for the US to get started:

Emma, honey, we didn't go to the moon...we filmed that in Afghanistan to mess with the Russkies. We're there now trying to find that old film set. PS The Kyoto Protocol or anything like it is deader than Franco. Sorry. Just is.